Medford Oregon Mail Tribune Editorial on Vaccine Kool AidPosted: 01 Oct 2020 03:00 AM PDTThank you and congratulations to AofA reader Michael Framson on his published editorial in the Medford, Oregon Mail Tribune newspaper. The verbiage is below. Brave voices speaking out in even tones, without rancor, offering information and facts is what will help Americans who are starting to question vaccine safety really listen.
###The Washington Post (WAPO) editorial in the Tribune claimed that confidence in vaccines has been eroded by a “vociferous anti-vaccination movement.” Not true! Dr. Heidi Larson, PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project says the biggest factor in vaccine hesitancy is vaccine safety.She points out at the recent WHO Vaccine Safety Summit that “doctors and nurses are ‘very wobbly’ and ‘starting to question the safety of vaccines,’ and “it’s a “huge problem.” In fact, “doctors don’t have confidence in vaccine safety to stand up to mothers asking questions.”WAPO, it is the vaccine science or lack thereof that has eroded the public’s vaccine confidence. As Dr. Larson points out: “There is a lot of safety science needed; “they can’t keep repurposing old science that isn’t relevant” to the safety questions parents are asking.Vaccination is an invasive medical procedure using imperfect products, inadequately studied manufactured by an industry notorious for its greed, fraud, deception, lies, and prolific marketing, whether they are pushing Vioxx or vaccines. The only difference between the two is that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held accountable for their injuries and deaths.Post, stop drinking your Kool-Aid long enough to read the science. The vociferous have.
Posted: 01 Oct 2020 04:14 AM PDT Knucklehead definition, a stupid, bumbling, inept person.
Knuckleheads, however, are what fans of The Three Stooges and the merchandise store are called. NJ Governor Phil Murphy called those who violated the lock down orders knuckleheads. It’s a funny word, coined by funny men almost 100 years ago (they created comedy from 1922 – 1970!) And the word adds a bit of levity in an otherwise very heavy world.
Tesla, Space-X founder Elon Musk says no to a CoVax. And calls Bill Gates, “a knucklehead,” which is a lot nicer than the exchanges at the election debate. Quaint even. Musk is the 4th richest man in American and quite a bit younger than 65 year old Bill Gates at 49 years old. Whom do you trust to help plan YOUR future? Business Insider took a look at the “feud” between the two tech giants:
Elon Musk says he won’t take coronavirus vaccine, calls Bill Gates a ‘knucklehead’SpaceX founder Elon Musk stirred the pot yet again after claiming that neither he nor his family would take a COVID-19 vaccine even if it was readily available.The 49-year-old billionaire dropped the bombshell during a Monday appearance on the New York Times opinion podcast “Sway.”“I’m not at risk, neither are my kids,” Musk told host Kara Swisher about the rationale behind his decision.During the bizarre exchange, the Tesla CEO decried the nationwide lockdown as a “no-win situation” that has “diminished my faith in humanity.” Musk previously called widespread quarantines “unethical” and “de facto house arrest,” RT reports… Elon Musk says he won’t take coronavirus vaccine, calls Bill Gates a ‘knucklehead’
The Biden/Wallace Debating Team needs to Apologize for Slandering Proud Boys “International Chairman” Afro-Latino Enrique Tarrio
The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.
Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research. – Black professor Wilfred Reilly in the Washington Times
President Donald Trump did well in his debate with the Joe Biden/Democrat Chris Wallacedebating team who together treated him contemptuously. The disgraceful Biden over and over again despicably name-called the president with invective insults such as “clown” and “racist” with Wallace at times mockingly laughing along with him.
It is obvious that Biden and Wallace were a debating team against Trump. Wallace’s best debating line of the night was pretending that he wasn’t debating Trump:
The only time in the debate when the Wallace/Biden debating team was left silent and wordless was when President Trump asked the two to name one police law enforcement organization that supported their ticket’s apparent backhanded support of violent Black Live Matters rioting and demands for defunding the police.
Moreover, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel showed how the Wallace/Biden debating team worked together:
Wallace said Trump had criticized Biden for not calling out Antifa and other left-wing extremist groups for violence in recent protests across the country. Then he asked Trump to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and say that “they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities.”
President Trump said he was “willing to do that” before pivoting to respond that the violence in cities across the country is not the fault of those groups. “Almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing.” Later in the exchange, when pressed to make a statement, Trump asked: “Who would you like me to condemn?”
Afro-Latino Enrique Tarrio on Parler said he is the chairman of the Proud Boys according to the Sun-Sentinel.
Black CubanTarrio, who isn’t a ” white supremacist,” said:
Although I am excited about our mention on the debate stage…
I am not taking this as a direct endorsement from the President. He did an excellent job and was asked a VERY pointed question. The question was in reference to WHITE SUPREMACY…which we are not.
The Washington Times reported that the Biden/Wallace debating team simply lied:
[A] prominent Black professor at a historically Black university… Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly…
The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.
Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.
“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.” [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/wilfred-reilly-insists-proud-boys-arent-white-supr/]
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
Please, pray an Our Father now for President Trump and our country now because this is the important fork in the road for the United States. Please, keep this intentions in your prayers.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The Biden/Wallace Debating Team needs to Apologize for Slandering Proud Boys “International Chairman” Afro-Latino Enrique Tarrio
Even a good hen can lay a bad egg. Crisis Magazine, an outlet often featuring solid content, ran a piece the other day that baffled many: Declan Leary’s Yes, Biden Is Catholic. That’s the Problem (here).
One of Leary’s central points is that Joe Biden represents the “typical product of the Catholic Church in our nation and our time,” and that this is a shame and a tremendous problem in need of correction. To this, we are inclined to agree. As the author rightly points out, reading any recent US survey stats should be enough to make the case.
Equally resonant was this excerpt:The crisis of the Catholic Church in America is not that it has produced Joe Biden, but that it has produced ten million Joe Bidens. They sit on our parish councils. They teach in Catholic schools. They populate the pews on the weeks that it’s convenient. Again, agreeable stuff.
Priests and bishops, take note.But when Leary picks up a theological shovel to attempt the burial of the common cris de cœur: “Joe Biden is not Catholic!”, he comes up with this:To disbelieve the Catholicity of someone who has been baptized and confirmed is to profess doubt over the sacraments’ ineluctable character. Joe Biden cannot choose not to be Catholic, and we cannot choose to stop calling him Catholic, whatever monstrous public sins he may undertake. The determination is above his ability, and ours, to alter.
This is no mere semantic distinction: we do a great disservice to the power of the Church when we accept that politics can prevail over her sacraments.Come again?Are heretics, apostates, schismatics, or the excommunicated unable to choose not to be Catholic? Do such in fact alwaysremain Catholic, because of the Sacraments’ “ineluctable character”? Pope Pius XII on the subject:Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration [baptism] and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority…
Therefore, those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.Mystici Corporis, n. 22 (emphasis ours)Perhaps Leary’s claim is just one of semantic precision: “Catholic” simply means “someone who was validly baptized,” full stop: one subject to Catholic law, whether they recognize and accept it or not (something equally applicable to many Protestants and Orthodox). In this case, one can be “Catholic” while at the same time not being a “member”of the Catholic Church… a rather strange notion, and quite confusing for those simple folks who still think words have meaning. In such a usage, one should at least add a standard clarifying modifier like “unfaithful,” or Cardinal Burke’s “not a Catholic in good standing,” or even Fr. Longenecker’s “Coastal Catholic.
“But then again, perhaps Leary would maintain that Joe Biden also remains a member of the Church; that he has not publicly denied articles of Faith (e.g., the sacramental character of Matrimony, or man’s ability to observe the Commandments), or separated from the common body of the Church through his own act (e.g., obstinate public persistence in grave evils, refusing to submit to lawful superiors)… one wonders if Leary would even consider a public sentence of excommunication sufficient cause to “stop calling him Catholic”?
Biden officiating at a same-sex “wedding” in 2016…a major aspect of the needed Catholic restoration is definitely one of language. For the good manualist Fr. Ludwig Ott’s concise and classical distillation of what precisely makes for a “member of the Church,” see here. And bravo the restoration!
VATICAN CITY, September 29, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis is refusing to meet with U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo during the latter’s visit to Rome this week, apparently over Pompeo’s criticism of the Vatican for renewing a controversial agreement with communist China.
Pompeo will be meeting with Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin and foreign minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher, The Independentreports, but the Pope will not meet with him, citing the optics of a meeting so close to the U.S. presidential election.
However, speculation abounds that the real reason for the snub is Pompeo’s public criticism of the Vatican’s relationship with the authoritarian, anti-Christian Chinese government.
“Now more than ever, the Chinese people need the Vatican’s moral witness and authority in support of China’s religious believers,” Pompeo wrote earlier this month. “The Holy See has a unique capacity and duty to focus the world’s attention on human rights violations, especially those perpetrated by totalitarian regimes like Beijing’s.”
At issue is an agreement China and the Vatican signed in 2018, under which the Vatican has some influence on the appointment of Catholic bishops in the country, while the Vatican recognizes other bishops appointed by Beijing without its input.
The secretary of state added that Chinese Catholics are “confused” by the Vatican’s legitimization of schismatic priests and bishops “whose loyalties remain unclear” and added that “what the Church teaches the world about religious freedom and solidarity should now be forcefully and persistently conveyed by the Vatican in the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s relentless efforts to bend all religious communities to the will of the Party and its totalitarian program.”
The Guardianreports that Pompeo intends to raise the issue during his visit to the Vatican and has warned that the Vatican will “endange[r] its moral authority” if it renews the agreement next month.
“2014, the [Chinese Communist Party], inside, made the decision: Every year, they want 2 billion dollars to pay to the Vatican, to influence the Vatican policy about China/Vatican — and [regarding] the Christian and Catholic [mistreatment], they wanted Vatican to shut up, to follow the CPC about religion, you know the policy — that’s disaster,” Chinese dissident Guo Wengui claimed in June.
Wengui did not offer supporting evidence at the time, but China expert and Population Research Institute founder Steven Mosher says that while Guo’s numbers may be inflated, “China is clearly throwing a lot of money around on the world stage in its drive for dominance,” and “the Vatican has acknowledged accepting such donations, at least in terms of medical supplies.”
In March, the Pope said Christians in China should be “good citizens” and “promote the Gospel, but without engaging in proselytism.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Pope Francis is refusing to meet with U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo during the latter’s visit to Rome this week, apparently over Pompeo’s criticism of the Vatican for renewing a controversial agreement with communist China.
TRUMP-BIDEN RINGSIDEBy E. P. UnumSeptember 30, 2020
Well, Round One of the Trump Biden Debates is in the books and it is time to go to the scorecards.
On the surface, that would seem to be a difficult task given all of the interruptions and heated arguments out forth. But, as in most fights, scoring will largely be determined by the number of effective blows landed by each contestant. In the case of Round One of the Trump-Biden Debates, when you sift through the dust and the smoke and the interruptions, the clear winner by a wide margin was President Donald Trump.
Let me explain my scorecard based on facts, not conjecture or suppositions: 1. I do not care who you are, or who you think you are, you do not call the President of the United States a “liar” or a “clown” nor do you act like a tough street hood and tell him to “shut up”. For someone who accuses President Trump of not being “Presidential” (whatever that means) these remarks on a national stage, with millions of people watching from around the country and indeed the world can hardly be considered “Presidential”.
2. Joe Biden refusing to respond to questions about packing the Supreme Court is not at all what you would expect from someone seeking to be the leader of the free world.
3. Joe Biden calling Antifa an “idea” is ridiculous on its face. Antifa is a well organized communist group with origins dating back to the fall of the Weimer Republic in Germany in the 1930’s. They have been filmed handing out weapons in our cities to burn and loot businesses and create turmoil with the objective of achieving transformative change to American society and government. They are a radical group and Joe Biden shaking his head saying “not true”, “not true” is not a sign of leadership. He gave the impression that he really is unaware of what is going on in our country.
4. With respect to the issue of Law and Order, Joe Biden could not respond to questions posed to him about why he would not even say the words “law and order” and could not name a single law and order organization who has endorsed him. Shame on Chris Wallace for pressing a ridiculous question posed to President Trump about whether he would denounce “white supremacist groups”. President Trump has denounced such groups numerous times and that is a fact.
5. I was astounded that there was no discussion whatsoever about the major peace accords reached between Israel and Arab nations in the Middle East and the fact that no such accords were ever reached in eight years of the Obama-Biden Administration.
6. Joe Biden continuously referred to President Trump as a liar. That is really rich. He is a man who has been caught in more lies and exaggerations, plagiarism, and insults directed at people than anyone I have ever seen. His entire life is built on lies and falsehoods.
7. Joe Biden flat out lied when he claimed that he and President Obama was responsible for the success our nation’s economy reached under President Trump.
8. If you listened carefully to the question posed by Chris Wallace about racism in America, Biden said that there was indeed “systemic racism” in America. But if that is the case, when did it start? Joe Biden has been in government for forty seven years and served under Barack Obama, a black President. Why didn’t he address this issue then? Where has he been for forty seven years?
9. On the issue of the economy, Biden clearly indicated that “he represents the Democratic Party and what he says is the Party’s policy”. He denied steadfastly that there was no agreement signed between himself and the Bernie Sanders led coalition. Those are bold faced lies. There are indeed numerous letters of agreement, and in particular, support for the “Green New Deal” although Biden calls it by another name. That plan calls for $100 Trillion in spending…money we do not have….and which will not generate economic returns.
But there is much more. Biden reaffirmed that he will raise taxes on Americans to the tune of $4.0 Trillion next year; that he will “on day one of his Administration, repeal all of the Trump tax cuts”; that he will increase taxes on corporations, on stock market gains, on 401-K plans….and he is going to do all this in a period where people are struggling to make ends meet and find jobs. How does this make any sense? Biden said it clearly. But no one in the media today is speaking about this. And when he rambled on about the programs he intended to launch, he spoke glowingly and great pride that his plan called for retrofitting 40 million buildings across America to make them more efficient and emit less gasses into the environment. He intends to build 500,000 electric charging stations on our highways so that electric cars can be charged on their travels. I listened carefully to this and asked myself…..at what cost? And where is the economic benefit to us? Biden clearly wants to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels but has he thought about where all this electricity is going to come from?
Finally, on the subject of economics, Biden exclaimed that his plan of increased taxes will magically create an additional $1.0 Trillion in wealth. I have spent over forty five years in finance in the private sector and as a college professor…I would like to review those assumptions and calculations because I am scratching my head as to who “the well known financial executives and economists on Wall Street” Biden mentioned in his remarks endorsed his plan.
10. Chris Wallace asked Joe Biden why he has not spoken out against the violence that is so rampant at many of our major cities, virtually all of them democratically controlled. His response is “Hey, here’s the deal, I am not in government anymore, I am not in office….he’s the guy who needs to take action”. That was a well rehearsed defection but was also a “non-response”. When pressed by Chris Wallace about why Biden did not call governors or mayors to try to get them to take action, Biden responded again that “he is not in office”. In other words….”it’s not my job”. But it somehow it is his job to criticize and second guess the President. Not a good picture because the view is always much different from the cheap seats.
So, on balance, there was an awful lot of compelling issues that surfaced in Round One and while the pundits and newspapers have called this debate “an embarrassment for the country” I have a very different perspective. Yes, I would have liked less interruptions and argument but the substance was extremely informative, and once you get past the fog of conflict, the points made by President Trump were significant.
As if we didn’t know he’d cheat, here’s photographic proof Biden was wearing a wire last night during the debate!The video appears to have been taken by someone’s smartphone.Everything about it looks genuine, including the backdrop and Biden’s actions. As he adjusts his jacket, the loop of a wire is exposed. Watch the video several times to get the full impact. https://twitter.com/realjameswoods/status/1311179736253562881?s=10
Why do I think the Commission on Presidential Debateswill take no action on this gross violation of the rules? Rules aren’t rules if democrats choose not to recognize them. What’ll you bet mention of this never makes it into the Mainstream Media? Wouldn’t we like to know the real function of the apparent pencil/pen he was fiddling with in his hand all evening? Email Link https://conta.cc/3l5AVSl
Debate: “Strong” Trump vs. “Well Prepared,” but “Weak” Biden
The best analysis of the debate was from the American Catholic which described Joe Biden “as well prepared,” but “weak and defensive.” President Donald Trump was “strong” which reflected in his approval by Latinos who like “strong leaders”:
Biden was well prepared with canned responses, but visibly tired as the debate wore on.
Chris Wallace was a hapless moderator who seemed to think his main role was to protect Biden from Trump.
Trump’s goal was to constantly be on the attack. Mission accomplished.
Biden came across weak and defensive.
Trump came across as Trump. Few converts made but stirred up the base.
Trump scored on the economy and got Biden to admit that he is opposed to the Green New Deal. That will hurt Biden among already suspicious Leftist voters. Law enforcement was another winner for Trump. Trump drew blood on Hunter Biden, and Biden simply has no defense.
Biden drew blood on Trump’s taxes.
Debate reaction is mixed, but quite a few on the Left seem dismayed by Biden’s performance. People see Trump every day. These debates will be the only time the voters see Biden live, and last night they saw a defensive old man being verbally beaten up by Trump.
The snap poll by Telemundo, see above, is bad news for team Biden. Hispanics like, as a generalization, strong leaders and Biden projected weakness, not strength.
The Kennedy-Nixon debates, as a contrast to the spectacle last night, six decades ago, shows the degradation that our public culture has undergone in a fairly short period of time. [https://the-american-catholic.com/2020/09/30/thoughts-on-the-first-debate/]
The debate showed a “weak” Biden who was left silent and wordless when President Trump asked him to name one police law enforcement organization that supported his ticket’s apparent backhanded support of violent Black Live Matters rioting and demands for defunding the police.
Newsweek reported that “66 percent of [its Spanish-speaking] participants told Telemundo” that they “believed Trump won the debate” according to a poll:
“While the question of who won Tuesday’s presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden lies in the court of public opinion, Spanish-speaking viewers of Telemundo gave their support to Trump.”
“Both candidates have campaigned heavily in the Latino community. Trump’s campaign has attempted to reel in Latino supporters with his Latinos for Trump initiative. Biden made an appearance at a September Hispanic Heritage Month celebration in Florida. Work by the Trump campaign to attract Latino voters may be paying off.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on MY PERSPECTIVE: THE DEBATE WAS PAINFUL FOR ME TO WATCH. BIDEN SCORED WITH THE TV AUDIENCE BY CONSTANTLY LOOKING INTO THE CAMERA; TRUMP LOST POINTS BY NEVER LOOKING INTO THE CAMERA, HE CHOSE TO LOOK AT BIDEN INSTEAD, WHICH KEPT THE FOCUS ON BIDEN. I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS BELOW, BUT MY DISLIKE FOR THE MODERATOR, Chris Wallace, PUT A CLOUD ON THE WHOLE DEBATE FOR ME.
Forty-four United States senators voted not to make infanticide illegal, and every single one of them was a Democrat. I am speaking politically because a political party has sold out, and when forty-four senators would not vote to say that infanticide is wrong and illegal and immoral, they’ve left me, and they have, in my opinion, left Almighty God. -Dr. Ed Young
On Sunday, September 20, Dr. H. Edwin Young, pastor of Second Baptist Church in Houston, preached a compelling Pro-Life sermon. In addition to exposing Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion business, as taxpayer-funded killers, Dr. Young noted that a mother’s womb is the most dangerous place on the planet, dispelling all notions of a middle ground on abortion. Dr. Young celebrated Pro-Life efforts while upbraiding the Democrat party, making no apology for his political speech. In a recent interview with Church Militant, Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Trey Trainor confirmed that churches and their clergy are not barred from speaking on politics, and more importantly, Chairman Trainor explained that doing so would not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of churches or religious organizations.
Trainor, who was appointed to the FEC earlier this year by President Trump, is a Constitutional lawyer, specializing in election law, and has served as counsel with Texas Right to Life.Trainor spoke with Michael Voris of Church Militant about the way church leaders and clergy have been misguided, perhaps willfully, about mixing religion and politics.
Trainor explained that the little-publicized 2017 executive order signed by President Trump effectively blocked the 1954 Johnson Amendment that banned faith communities from certain political activity; the order also prevents the IRS from pursuing churches engaged in political speech. When signing the executive order, Trump said, “This financial threat against the faith community is over.”Rather than welcome the latitude to speak on faith and morals in the political arena, church functionaries and establishment pawns are decrying the powerful interview.
Despite the green-light to speak on the moral imperatives at stake in the November 2020 elections, Trainor and Voris, as well as untold numbers of Pro-Life voters across the U.S., remain mystified that most Catholic bishops pull the “separation of religion and politics” card out of one pocket while government money flows into the other.
Voris says, “In short, the U.S. Catholic bishops have, in exchange for money, sold out their obligation to preach the truth.”One cannot be a Christian in one sphere and unaffiliated in another; Christians, including clergy, must not separate religion and politics. Faithful citizenship requires both faith and civic duty to influence the culture with biblical principles and values through talk and walk…into the voting booth. That which is in hearts and minds manifests outward in word and deed, for better or worse, or, in other words, for the sacred or the profane. In a God-rejecting and God-denying culture, proponents of death, relativism, and socialism will fill that deafening silence left by reticent Christian clergy.
Even though no church has ever lost tax exempt status for political speech, the Johnson Amendment historically chilled some Pro-Life churches and faith leaders from taking a stance on political matters. Yet abortion advocates such as Reverends Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright, and Fr. James Martin, S.J., have missed few opportunities to promote their leftist Democrat ideology at churches while Christian clergy who pastor actual flocks cower from what they perceive as controversial issues.
In recent weeks, Fr. James Altman, a Catholic priest in Wisconsin, suffered rebuke for speaking this truth: faithful Catholics cannot be Democrats. Fr. Altman expounded that anyone who claims to be a Catholic Christian cannot be aligned with an outright anti-Life political party. In the Church Militant interview, Chairman Trainor referenced Fr. Altman’s remarks as exactly the type of speech that is permitted and should be encouraged in churches, particularly in light of the fact that most Democrat candidates are pro-abortion, including Joe Biden who is a professing Catholic.
Texas’ Bishop Joseph Strickland stood with Altman, lamenting that he [Strickland] took so long to express such lucidity. Director of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, told Breitbart in regard to abortion: “Personally, I am an Independent, [b]ut it is a moral obligation for me and for all of us in the Church, clergy and laity alike, to point out the moral corruption of the Democrat platform.”No candidate or political party perfectly reflects or embodies the will of God, but Christians must examine and re-examine platforms, parties, and politicians and their policies to ensure that biblical values are promulgated and protected. Church leaders and clergy have a duty to reprove assaults on truth and Life and to shepherd their flocks on matters of faith and morals. Elections encompass myriad issues of faith and morals, and the most pressing are the Pro-Life issues. Dr. Ed Young and Frs. Pavone and Altman are all standing in the gap, exposing the Democrat party’s position on abortion, adroitly mixing religion and politics constitutionally from the pulpit.Pro-Life Americans are faced with a well-funded political machine seeking to establish the most anti-Life regime in America’s history with Biden and Harris at the top of their ticket. Now is the time to mix religion and politics in the pulpits and the rooftops (Matthew 10:27).
Amy Coney Barrett’s record of judicial rulings and legal writings shows that she holds an originalist view of the Constitution, and it provides a glimpse into her opinions on such diverse issues as religious liberty, national healthcare, environmental regulations, the right to life, and the Second Amendment. Here are the facts about the woman who could replace replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
Biography
Amy Coney Barrett was born to Michael and Linda Coney on January 28, 1972, in New Orleans, where she attended St. Mary’s Dominican High School. Barrett earned a bachelor’s degree in English literature from Rhodes College in 1994 and a juris doctorate from Notre Dame Law School, where she served as executive editor of the law review and finished first in her class. She clerked for Reagan-appointed D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence H. Silberman in 1998-1999 and the following year for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she calls “my mentor.” Barrett went into private practice for two years, then taught for one year at George Washington University School of Law. Since 2002 she has taught at Notre Dame Law School, winning “Distinguished Professor of the Year” three timesand serving as a member of the university’s “Faculty for Life” group.
She and husband, Jesse, have seven children: Emma, Tess, Vivian, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. The family adopted Vivian, who suffered such severe malnutrition that doctors thought she would never walk, and John Peter from Haiti. Benjamin – “his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling,” Barrett said on Saturday – was born with Down syndrome. Barrett commutes nearly 100 miles from her home in South Bend, Indiana, to Chicago.
President Donald Trump appointed Barrett to the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit May 8, 2017. During the confirmation hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Dick Durbin of Illinois interrogated Barrett over her religious views, asking for her definition of an “orthodox Catholic” and proclaiming, “The dogma lives loudly in you.” The full Senate confirmed Barrett by a 55-43 vote on October 31, 2017. She has commuted 100 miles to the court from her home in South Bend, Indiana, ever since. Barrett had been a frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Anthony Kennedy, but President Trump ultimately selected Justice Brett Kavanaugh to fill the position. (“I’m saving her for Ginsburg,” Trump reportedly said in 2019.) If confirmed, she will be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the court, as well as being the youngest justice on the current Court and the only one to have earned her law degree somewhere other than Harvard or Yale.
Views on major issues
Barrett’s two-year tenure on a federal appeals court, as well as her publications, furnish evidence about her positions on certain key issues, including:
Affordable Care Act: Few recent Supreme Court decisions have stirred as much controversy as the justices’ decision to affirm the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, conventionally known as Obamacare. Barrett critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts’ last-minute change of position on NFIB v. Sebelius in her review of Randy Barnett’s Our Republican Constitution. “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” she wrote. “He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.” Barrett classified this act of jurisprudential transubstantiation as another example of “Roberts’ devotion to constitutional avoidance.” Barrett’s opponents now warn that her low view of Roberts’ reasoning assures that, if she is confirmed, “millions of families’ health care will be ripped away in the middle of a pandemic.”
Religious liberty: Amy Coney Barrett holds a robust view of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Barrett joined a ruling that recognizes religious liberty as an inherent and preeminent right under the First Amendment. Barrett was part of a three-judge panel in Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker (2020), which stated Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker did not have to grant the state Republican Party the same right to gather in larger numbers during the lockdown that churches enjoyed. “There can be no doubt that the First Amendment singles out the free exercise of religion for special treatment,” the opinion held. “Free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities.” In addition to speaking before the pro-religious liberty Alliance Defending Freedom, Barrett has signed a 2012 statement saying the Obama administration’s accommodation to its HHS mandate is exceedingly narrow and “fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience.”
Original intent: Amy Coney Barrett seems to share Justice Antonin Scalia’s jurisprudence, which establishes the meaning of the Constitution based or the original intent of the Founding Fathers. “Originalists, like textualists, care about what people understood words to mean at the time that the law was enacted because those people had the authority to make law,” she wrote. “[A]n originalist submits to the precise compromise reflected in the text of the Constitution. That is how judges approach legal text, and the Constitution is no exception.” She has criticized a “spurious” form of textualism, known as literalism, which holds that the words of the Constitution or the law may be reinterpreted apart from establishing its defining context. “For an originalist, by contrast, the historical meaning of the text is a hard constraint.” She has applied this approach in a well-researched ruling on the Second Amendment. (See below.)
“I have rejected throughout my entire career the proposition that, as you say, the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide cases based on a desire to reach a certain outcome,” she said in her 2017 confirmation hearings.
Due process of the law: Amy Coney Barrett criticized opaque campus proceedings that deny the accused due process of the law. In John Doe v. Purdue University (2019), she ruled in favor of a male student found guilty of sexually assaulting a female student, despite the fact that the board never interviewed the alleged victim, the accused could not see the evidence against him, he had no ability to call an eyewitness who denied the allegation, and he could not introduce evidence about his accuser’s mental health issues. The university found him guilty using a “preponderance of the evidence standard” promoted by the Obama administration in 2011. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos formally codified students’ rights to due process in a set of Title IX regulations rolled out in May.
Abortion: Although Amy Coney Barrett has said “it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn” Roe v. Wade, she refrained from classing the landmark 1973 case among “so-called superprecedents” which “no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with [their] interpretive premises.” Barrett would have granted a hearing on two pro-life laws signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, one of which barred abortions based on race, sex, or disability, indicating she likely would have supported them. “Using abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered,” said the three-judge dissent, which Barrett joined. “None of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”
Barrett upheld a Chicago city ordinance banning pro-life sidewalk counselors from coming closer than eight feet to any woman who is within 50 feet of an abortion facility’s door. The unanimous opinion noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed the existence of speech ban zones in Hill v. Colorado (2000).
Theocracy: Opponents have painted Amy Coney Barrett as a closet advocate of theocracy over a 2006 speech she gave at Notre Dame Law School, which said that “legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the kingdom of God.” Both the speech’s text and her record make clear that she merely advised Christians to dedicate all their work to God, not to impose their faith by judicial decree – a notion she finds noxious. “Judges cannot – nor should they try to – align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” Barrett wrote in a 1998 Notre Dame’s Law Review article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill, asked her, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Barrett replied, “I am a faithful Catholic, I am – although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” She added, “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law.”
Second Amendment: Barrett has upheld the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Second Amendment grants an individual, rather than a corporate, right to keep and bear arms. Her clearest statement came in her dissent to a three-judge panel decision in Kanter v. Barr (2019). The case investigated whether Congress had the “power to strip certain groups” like nonviolent felons of the right to keep and bear arms. “To be sure, under this theory such a person could possess a gun as a matter of legislative grace,” she wrote. “That is an unusual way of thinking about rights.”
Barrett displayed her commitment to originalism in an opinion that masterfully explored the original intent of the Founding Fathers, delving deeply into state gun legislation in the early republic. Barrett concluded the state’s right to deprive someone of the right to keep and bear arms “extends only to people who are dangerous,” not to all felons. “The Second Amendment confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense,” echoing the Supreme Court’s ruling in D.C. v. Heller (2008). She also underscored the importance of gun rights in a majority opinion she wrote concerning proper arrest protocol. She overturned the conviction of a felon arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, because the anonymous tip that led to his apprehension did not assert evidence of violence or the threat of danger.
Private property and environmental regulations: Amy Coney Barrett has pared back federal overreach on environmental ordinances. She joined the 2018 Orchard Hill Building Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ruling, which denied the Army Corps of Engineers’ attempt to classify a 13-acre tract of land as a wetlands area, even though the closest body of water is 11 miles away. The ruling expressed frustration with the sloth-like pace of litigation, noting, “This dispute has consumed almost as many years as the Warmke wetlands have acres.”
Constitutional separation of powers, emergency powers, and suspending habeas corpus: Amy Coney Barrett has written in a 2014 article that Congress has been too willing to delegate emergency powers to the president, including the right to suspend habeas corpus. Congress “has delegated broad authority to the [p]resident, permitting him in almost every case to decide whether, when, where, and for how long to exercise emergency power,” she wrote. In some case, legislators had granted the president these powers “before an invasion or rebellion actually occurred and in some instances, before one was even on the horizon.” While Congress can delegate these powers, the Constitution “does require Congress to decide the most significant constitutional predicates for itself” unless “an invasion or rebellion has occurred.”
Her track record of decision, judicial writing, and an uplifting personal story have convinced constitutionalists that Barrett’s appointment will ease the Supreme Court away from its role as a nine-person rotating legislature.
“Amy Coney Barrett will decide cases based on the text of the Constitution as written,” said President Donald Trump when he nominated her on Saturday. “You are not there to decide cases as you may prefer you are there to do your duty, and to follow the law, wherever it may take you. That is exactly what Judge Barrett will do on the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Legal advocates agree that “ACB” will serve the nation well. “Amy Coney Barrett is the right choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, because she applies the intent and text of the Constitution to the statutes she reviews,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “A judge should be a neutral interpreter of the Constitution who knows what it means to interpret and apply the law, rather than an activist legislator who tries to create the law.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on HERE IS AN ARTICLE THAT GIVES YOU A FAIR AND BALANCED INSIGHT INTO THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT OF Amy Coney Barrett
Tuesday – September 29, 2020 “America’s court wars, in which the coming battle over Barrett’s nomination may prove decisive, go back half a century.” By nominating Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Donald Trump kept his word, and more than that.
Should she be confirmed, he will have made history.
Even his enemies would have to concede that Trump triumphed where his Republican predecessors — even Ronald Reagan, who filled three court vacancies — fell short. Trump’s achievement — victory in the Supreme Court wars that have lasted for half a century — is a triumph that will affect the nation and the law for years, perhaps decades.
Trump’s remaking of the Supreme Court for constitutionalism may well be the crown jewel of his presidency.
Consider. If Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, she will join Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to create a constitutionalist core of five justices, a controlling majority.
On the other side would sit the three liberals: 82-year-old Stephen Breyer and Barack Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Have something to say about this column? Visit Gab – The social network that champions free speech – Comment without Censorship! Or visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments…. If Chief Justice John Roberts envisioned a Roberts Court where he would be the swing vote for 4-4 deadlocks, deciding every such case himself, his dream could be about to vanish.
If Barrett is confirmed, the new court becomes “The Five,” with its youngest, newest and most charismatic member, a 48-year-old protege of Justice Antonin Scalia, its brightest and rising star.
Consider the credentials of the jurist Trump just named.
Barrett was summa cum laude at Notre Dame Law School, graduating first in her class. She clerked for Scalia, taught law at South Bend for 15 years and has served for three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
She is a non-Ivy League, Middle American and a devout Catholic and mother of seven, including a special needs child and two adopted children from Haiti. Almost universally, former classmates and colleagues, liberals among them, praise her temperament, brilliance and scholarship.
America’s court wars, in which the coming battle over Barrett’s nomination may prove decisive, go back half a century.
It was begun in June 1968, as Richard Nixon, victorious in his party’s primaries, was moving inexorably to the GOP nomination in Miami Beach and very possibly on to the presidency of the United States.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, an old adversary of Nixon’s from California days, was not happy with this. A report in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Warren “is said to feel that Richard Nixon — regarded as the GOP’s likely presidential nominee — would be bound to appoint a new Chief Justice pledged to overturn recent court decisions guaranteeing constitutional rights of criminals.”
Nixon sent the clipping to me with a note: “Buchanan: Why doesn’t (Strom) Thurmond send this to Southern papers — opinion leaders.”
The Inquirer article proved to be on point. In collusion with Chief Justice Warren, President Lyndon Johnson had hatched a plot. Watch the Latest Videos on Our Buchanan-Trump YouTube Playlist! Warren would announce his resignation as chief justice and would make acceptance contingent upon Johnson’s nominee to succeed him being confirmed. And that nominee would be Justice Abe Fortas, a court ally of Warren and longtime crony of LBJ. All three were in on it.
When Fortas was confirmed, his vacant seat as associate justice would then be filled by Federal Judge Homer Thornberry, also an ally of Johnson’s going back to his Texas days.
Thus would Nixon be preempted, the liberalism of the high court guaranteed, and the Warren Court succeeded for another decade by the Fortas Court.
When LBJ named Fortas, Nixon went silent. But GOP Senators Robert Griffin, John Tower and Howard Baker moved to block Fortas’ ascent. They used an argument familiar to us today. The new president chosen in November, not the president retiring in January, should choose Warren’s replacement as chief justice.
The attack from Senate Republicans soon zeroed in on Fortas’ social liberalism on pornography as manifest in his having voted alone on the court to approve for public viewing films depicting acts of homosexual sex.
Fortas not only failed to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate he needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, he also failed to win a simple majority, receiving only 45 votes for confirmation. On Oct. 1, 1968, Fortas asked Johnson to withdraw his nomination, and in the spring of 1969, he was forced to resign from the court in a financial scandal.
Warren would have to swear in Nixon as the nation’s 37th president on Jan. 20, 1969, and then watch Nixon replace him as chief justice with Judge Warren Burger in the spring of that same year.
Came then Nixon’s losing battles to put Southern judges Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell on the court, Reagan’s failure to elevate Bob Bork, and the brutal but failed assaults on Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.
Now comes Amy Coney Barrett’s turn.
If Senate Republicans stay united, then they can realize a victory that generations of their GOP predecessors had hoped to see.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Even his enemies would have to concede that Trump triumphed where his Republican predecessors — even Ronald Reagan, who filled three court vacancies — fell short. Trump’s achievement — victory in the Supreme Court wars that have lasted for half a century — is a triumph that will affect the nation and the law for years, perhaps decades
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.